Measure A makes us take responsibility for the future.

>>THELOCALSPIN

We are constantly being reminded that the decision we are making in the June 5 special election is extremely complicated, and that is true, in a way. But the fact is, we face a clear-cut choice between two starkly contrasting futures.

Much of the recent coverage and debate around the question has focused on side issues and legalistic minutiae. While these details are important, the bigger issue seems to have gotten lost. We run the risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Yes: The two documents we are to choose between are lengthy and filled with complex jargon; the history that led us to this crossroads is long and rife with twists; the politics that surround the issue are convoluted and fraught. But the decision we face is too important to let any of this get in the way. In voting whether to adopt Measure A, the slow-growth General Plan Initiative (GPI), or Measure C, the plan put forward by the Board of Supervisors (GPU 4), we are determining the way this county will look and feel in 20 years.

At the heart of the proposals are two fundamental differences:

• The Supervisors’ plan “allows roughly twice as much growth, in roughly twice as many places” as Measure A.

That conclusion is not a scare-tactic dreamed up by the slow-growthers; it comes from an editorial in last Sunday’s Herald, which opposed the citizen’s initiative.

In the Supervisors’ plan, growth control sare almost meaningless.

The citizen’s initiative would allow 10,000 new housing units (in addition to the 40,000 new units already approved) and mandates that all new development occur in five growth areas—mostly located around cities. The Supervisors’ plan allows for the construction of around 21,000 new units, and creates 17 areas for development.

However, in the Supervisors’ plan, growth controls are almost meaningless.

• Under GPU 4, developers seeking to build outside the growth areas—in the middle of nowhere, on prime farmland, anywhere at all—need only appeal to the Board of Supervisors.

Under Measure A, this type of development (and only this type of development) requires a popular vote. That controversial requirement is specifically designed to limit the Supervisors’ power to recklessly ignore the General Plan. It is a cumbersome arrangement, but necessary.

The whole point of the citizens’ initiative is to stop sprawl by deciding where growth can occur. It accomplishes that goal by making it impossible for elected officials to override zoning regulations. That gives Measure A teeth.

Without the provision for the popular vote, all of this effort would be a waste of time. The Board of Supervisors has proven that, given the chance, they will not think twice before giving a developer the green light, regardless of whatever plan is in place.  

Ultimately, this election asks a simple question: Do we want to have a say in the county’s future, or do we want to leave that to someone else?

• • •

On page one of the Sunday issue that contained the editorial against Measure A, the Herald ran a piece comparing the way the competing growth plans deal with affordable housing. The timing and placement of story—part of an ongoing series labeled “General Plan Showdown”—feeds the impression that this debate is largely about affordable housing.

Measure A’s opponents have succeeded in bringing this issue to the foreground. In fact, GPU 4 does little to solve the County’s affordable housing crisis. Its growth areas would include some 3,380 affordable units, compared to 2,440 with Measure A. Meanwhile, GPU 4 allows for 16,000 units that will be priced beyond the reach of 80 percent of county residents, while Measure A would allow for around 7,000 market-rate homes.

In it’s anti-Measure A editorial, the Herald states the common fallacy that “more market-rate housing means more affordable housing for people who need it.” Where on earth is the evidence to support that conclusion? Over the past decade, the California landscape has been transformed by massive sprawling housing developments. Meanwhile, we find rent or mortgage payments taking a bigger and bigger bite out of our paychecks.

We need to find a solution to Monterey County’s affordable housing problem—in fact, I wish that the Measure A plan did a better job of dealing with that issue. But that is not what this is about.

The campaign against Measure A is largely funded by groups and individuals who have fought long and hard against legislation that would provide more affordable housing. These powerful interests are spending a lot of money to see that GPU 4 passes—and not because they care deeply about the poor.

The heated political battle sparked by the citizens’ General Plan Initiative is evidence that the stakes in this election are very high. We need to keep that in mind, focus on the big picture, and work to see that Measure A passes—even if we have problems with some of the fine print.